-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The 2004 AFL Draft - in retrospect
- Thread starter pahoffm
- Start date
Funny things, drafts.
Two years ago the 2002 draft was looking decidedly sick. Since 2006, Brennan, McVeigh, Mackie, Salopek, McIntosh and Gilham have all established themselves as quality footballers and several others have demonstrated that they are at least capable of playing 80-120 games on an AFL list (Schulz, Bell, Laycock, Schammer, Crowley, Cloke, amongst quite a few others).
Nearly everyone of these players was struggling to establish themselves as regular AFL players until the 2007 season.
The 2002 draft looks reasonable now, so will the 2004 in a couple of years.
Two years ago the 2002 draft was looking decidedly sick. Since 2006, Brennan, McVeigh, Mackie, Salopek, McIntosh and Gilham have all established themselves as quality footballers and several others have demonstrated that they are at least capable of playing 80-120 games on an AFL list (Schulz, Bell, Laycock, Schammer, Crowley, Cloke, amongst quite a few others).
Nearly everyone of these players was struggling to establish themselves as regular AFL players until the 2007 season.
The 2002 draft looks reasonable now, so will the 2004 in a couple of years.
Just highlights the need to get as many new kids including rookies into the system as you can every year and keep turning over the players until you unearth the good ones. It just shows even first round picks are no certainties to make it, so you cant just introduce 2-3 new kids a year and expect them all to make it. Despite all the skill drafters have these days, the fact that Foley and Thursfield can slip through to the rookie draft just highlights luck still plays a large part, so you need as many as you can get to have a higher chance.
The other interesting point is Port Adelaide's attitude to their pick 11 , versus our attitude to pick 12.
Both Meyer and Thompson have underachieved for various reasons. Port are happy to cut their losses and accept a third round pick in exchange for a first round player they would have held high expectations for. . I wonder how we would feel if Meyer was exchanged for a 3rd round pick. We're still hanging on in the hope he will come good, purely because of his status as a first round pick. Not saying one philosophy is better than the other, just interesting 2 clubs with similar players at similar stages in their careers, but different attitudes
The other interesting point is Port Adelaide's attitude to their pick 11 , versus our attitude to pick 12.
Both Meyer and Thompson have underachieved for various reasons. Port are happy to cut their losses and accept a third round pick in exchange for a first round player they would have held high expectations for. . I wonder how we would feel if Meyer was exchanged for a 3rd round pick. We're still hanging on in the hope he will come good, purely because of his status as a first round pick. Not saying one philosophy is better than the other, just interesting 2 clubs with similar players at similar stages in their careers, but different attitudes
Your logic is clearly flawed. Port would of kept Thomson had he not requested a trade. With us and Meyer if we do keep him it is clearly due to him showing talent even though he missed almost two years through injury, it dosent matter what pick he was taken at(Kelvin Moore - rookie).S.D. said:
And also Meyer is on the "trade table".
But they were very quick to accept our third round pick. If he was a required player, don't you think they would have held out a little longer. Why agree to the trade on Tuesday of trade week? Like I said, I'm not saying we should neccessarily trade Meyer, but Thomson has shown more than him so far, and they seem quite willing to accept a third round pick.checkside said:
And, I could be wrong, but I doubt that had Meyer been drafted at pick 60 or a rookie, he would still have been with us.
With the acquisition of Thompson, Richmond now has 6 of the top 20 picks from the 2004 draft on its list. If that draft turns out to be a weak one over the long term then we're in a bit of trouble! :nailbiting
port have a history of quickly moving on players regardless of where they are drafted.
stevens of the nick variety pick 25 they didnt want to lose him.josh carr pick 7similar circumstance . koulouriotis pick 12, ackland pick 27guerra pick 28,murray 35. brooks 15 gilham 16. champion 57 eckerman 51. symes 30.thomson 11 most lasted about 4 yrs some less. but they have done what we have not. assessed quickly and turned the list over as much as possible even players who were early picks in a lot of cases they got something back on their original investment.
stevens of the nick variety pick 25 they didnt want to lose him.josh carr pick 7similar circumstance . koulouriotis pick 12, ackland pick 27guerra pick 28,murray 35. brooks 15 gilham 16. champion 57 eckerman 51. symes 30.thomson 11 most lasted about 4 yrs some less. but they have done what we have not. assessed quickly and turned the list over as much as possible even players who were early picks in a lot of cases they got something back on their original investment.
IrockZ said:
Absolutely.
I'm just using the comparison as evidence that there are more established players after 6 years on an AFL list than there are after four.
On the flipside, the draft pool has been diminished by players who have moved on.
We will know a something more substantial about the quality of the 04 draft in two years time. At the moment, not enough players have established themselves as keepers.
Its interesting. Arguments exist whether hawks rebuild started in '01 or '04.TOT70 said:
going by the above post, does it lend credence that it may take 6 (?) years on average for a draft group/year to develop?
Certainly there are exceptions, but maybe the "fruits" will be seen next year.
Interesting or not. Remains to be seen, I guess.
thoughts
The Hawks success is built on a group centered around Hodge, Mitchell, Croad, Bateman, Campbell and Campbell Brown and another that is built on Buddy, Roughead and Lewis.
Don't fall for the kids, kids, kids rhetoric either. They have added Guerra, Young, Sewell, Gilham and Dew as more mature players over the last few years.
Don't fall for the kids, kids, kids rhetoric either. They have added Guerra, Young, Sewell, Gilham and Dew as more mature players over the last few years.